36k rich Brits own 50% of all rural land

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byron
  • Start date Start date
The trouble in the UK, is that did they get the land through hard work/investment?..

More like inheritance.

Regards Errol 43
 
errol43 said:
The trouble in the UK, is that did they get the land through hard work/investment?..

More like inheritance.

Regards Errol 43
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? Say I work hard and I buy two houses in my life time and I bequeath one to each of my children, does that mean they do not own or deserve them?

Also it is obvious that no one on say $60k pa would be able to amass such an empire, the only ways possible to accomplish such a feat would be:
A multi-generational accumulation,
Win the lotto,
Sell drugs/crime/corruption,
Once in a life time idea/invention (eg bill gates)
 
Back in 1066 when I was but a lad, a bloke called "William the Bastard" came over from Normandy with 5000 of his merry men, and took it all off his cousin, King Harold.

Bill handed it out to his leading Knights etc as their personal estates, having confiscated the estates of King Harolds knights. The Knights that were smart enough, kept a tight hold and never sold any of it, renting it out instead to the downtrodden peasants.

I presume that the land that is now Mayfair was once a country estate out from London.


OC
 
PS,


The pilot that saved the QANTAS A-380 that nearly crashed was a bloke called Richard Champion de Crespigny. He can trace his family all the way back to Normandy and the invasion, as one of William's leading Knights.

Robert Champion de Crespigny was the founder of 'Normandy Mines'? which was about the second biggest gold producer in OZ. It was sold to Newcrest or Newmont (not sure which) for 100s of millions of dollars.

No info on their land holdings in England.


OC
 
Old Codger said:
Back in 1066 when I was but a lad, a bloke called "William the Bastard" came over from Normandy with 5000 of his merry men, and took it all off his cousin, King Harold.

Bill handed it out to his leading Knights etc as their personal estates, having confiscated the estates of King Harolds knights. The Knights that were smart enough, kept a tight hold and never sold any of it, renting it out instead to the downtrodden peasants.

I presume that the land that is now Mayfair was once a country estate out from London.


OC
Click to expand...

Apparently my father's side of the family traces it's ancestry back to Richard de Courcy (along with probably another 50 million people ), at some point in time one of my father's ancestor's must have slept with a local tavern wench and our line followed from there as both my grandmother and mother died landless in their housing commission units. :cool:

We have a family crest, it was probably just dodged up by some ancestry.com website and sold to any idiot with our last name for 50 quid. :lol:

Norman Knight of the Conquest 1066

Received following properties from Willam the Conqueror:

- Barony of Stoke, Somerset

- Manors of Newnham (Nuneham, Newentam), Sarsden (Setenden, Seckenden), and Foscot (Foxcote), in Oxfordshire granted due to his role as Justicular for Normandy. (Lands eventually passed to 2nd son William (I) around 1100 and eventually to Alice DeCourcy around 1200. (Flanders)

RICHARD DE COURCY, who accompanied William, duke of Normandy, in his expedition to England, and was present at the decisive battle of Hastings, 14 Oct. 1066. His services were recompensed with a considerable number of lordships in England, among which was that of Stoke, Co. Somerset, which from its lord, was styled STOKE COURCY, which he held, per integram baronium, with the lordships of Newentam, Seckenden, and Foxcote, in Oxfordshire. He d. in 1098, and was succeeded by his son.
Click to expand...
 
Byron said:
Yes it's true. 36,000 individuals mainly aristocrats own 50 % of all the rural land in Britain.
Click to expand...

My vague understanding is that much of London is similarly owned by a few and lots sold with 100 year leaseholds.
So every 100 years the real owners get it back and get to resell it again to the next generation of supposed property owners.
 
As a fairly experienced genealogist, I can assure all that ANYBODY that can claim a line prior to about 1538 or so when KH8 ordered all parish priests to record BDMs, must rely on VERY unreliable data such as family bibles, NONE of which will be accepted by the Genealogical Society of Victoria.

Sharing a family name means nothing.

...and during the English Civil War and after, many Parish priests buried and even burnt the registers to stall any research on relationships. I lost a few lines from that.


OC
 
AngloSaxon said:
Good on them.
Click to expand...

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising.

Just found this an interesting article.its also interesting to read about the historical circumstances that led to their large land holdings.

Would be grand owning 00s of acres in downtown London (or Sydney)
 
When I was backpacking I knew people who were tennants living in the cellar spaces under Southbridge in Edinburgh, which for it's small size as a city is a major thoroughfare. Belive it or not they were paying something like 60 pounds per month (astoundingly low). The place I recall had one little window in the kitchen, and the 'apartment' had many unused rooms further down in the foundations of the bridge. They described the landlord as a little old man who didn't really need the money, he was paid a toll for each vehicle that passed over the bridge by the City of Edinburgh. He had legal title to the bridge passed down to him from his ancestors.

A great gift to ones' descendants.
 
"Try tracing Oirish roots, nai on impossible"


Law Courts Fire of 1922. The rebels burned it down to stop the brits from finding kin relationships. The records of my 3 "Oirish" convicts destroyed.


OC
 
trew said:
Byron said:
Yes it's true. 36,000 individuals mainly aristocrats own 50 % of all the rural land in Britain.
Click to expand...

My vague understanding is that much of London is similarly owned by a few and lots sold with 100 year leaseholds.
So every 100 years the real owners get it back and get to resell it again to the next generation of supposed property owners.
Click to expand...

Leasehold property is fairly common in the UK, especially in the older housing stock.

When you buy a house you also separately buy the remaining portion of a (usually) 99 year lease for the ground on which the house sits.

Leases aren't the same as a simple rental agreement, insofar as they can't be terminated by the landlord with a period of notice, and if you happen to own the lease at the end of the 99 year period, the landlord is obliged to renew it. Any increase in the rent is (I think) set by statute or maybe a tribunal.

It's colloquially known as the "ground rent". The last place we lived in cost about 25 pounds per year and a little old lady who was the descendant of the original owners would come and knock on the door for it in cash.
 
Tacrezod said:
Leases aren't the same as a simple rental agreement, insofar as they can't be terminated by the landlord with a period of notice, and if you happen to own the lease at the end of the 99 year period, the landlord is obliged to renew it.
Click to expand...


Not correct, I think.


From http://www.gov.uk/leasehold-property (my bold):

"You only own a leasehold property for a fixed period of time.

You'll have a legal agreement with the landlord (sometimes known as the 'freeholder') called a 'lease'. This tells you how many years you'll own the property.

Ownership of the property returns to the landlord when the lease comes to an end."



That said, the same website explains you don't need to leave the property at the end of the lease unless asked, and that in some situations tenants might qualify for lease extensions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top